ADVERTISEMENT

Breaking: Spanier files defamation suit against ...

Tom McAndrew

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
56,692
40,372
1
Louis Freeh, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, Freeh Group International Solutions, and Penn State University.

Spanier's team has set up a web site concerning the debunking of Louis Freeh's Penn State Report. You can access it at this link.

You can access the court filing at this link.

Read both links carefully. There are a number of things contained in them that have not been previously exposed.

Tom
 
The timing is interesting. Normally you wait until the criminal case is over because the discovery in this case could dig up stuff prosecutors might try to use in the criminal case.

So does this mean Spanier's team has concluded he's going to win acquittal or get the criminal charges dropped?

That Spanier would have taken part in a cover-up of actual child abuse allegations always seemed far fetched to me. It also seemed far fetched that he would commit grand jury perjury. It seemed more plausible that he and/or Schultz could have screwed up in some way that could get them charged with obstruction -- if, say, they failed to produce documents that were found at a later date or something like that. But that is not an easy case to make on its own if they can demonstrate that they were trying in good faith to be responsive to the subpoenas.
 
Care to give any examples for those of us unable to read through that now? :)
 
ESPN article on such...


Former Penn State President Graham Spanier is suing former FBI chief Louis J. Freeh for defamation and tortious interference and Penn State University for breach of contract,according to a complaint filed Wednesday afternoon in Centre County, Pennsylvania.
The 140-page lawsuit accuses Freeh and his law firm, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, of "knowingly and maliciously" publishing "false and defamatory" statements about Spanier in the July 2012 Freeh Report that accused the longtime PSU president of being part of a cover up of child sex abuse by retired assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Spanier, 66, filed his civil lawsuit while still waiting to stand trial on charges of perjury, endangering the welfare of children, obstruction of justice, failure to report child abuse, conspiracy to commit perjury and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of children.
"By all accounts, Dr. Spanier was one of the most honored and decorated university presidents with a sterling reputation before Freeh and Penn State published these false conclusions," said Libby Locke, a lawyer for Spanier and a partner at Clare Locke in Alexandria, Virginia. "Dr. Spanier knows that he is innocent. And once an impartial jury has the opportunity to weigh the full body of evidence -- not just Freeh's one-sided presentation of it -- Dr. Spanier is confident that the public will know it, too."
Officials from Freeh's office and Penn State could not immediately be reached for comment.
The complaint also accuses "certain members" of Penn State's board of trustees of making "disparaging statements" about Spanier in the weeks and months following Sandusky's arrest in November 2011.
Spanier served as Penn State's president from 1995 through 2011.
His lawyers accuse several PSU trustees of falsely telling members of the media and the public that Spanier had been fired when he and the university signed a termination agreement that allowed him to keep an array of benefits including a tenured professorship, which Locke said he still has, though the university is in the process of attempting to revoke. In addition to publishing the Freeh Report on a university website, two members of the board of trustees "repeatedly made negative comments about Dr. Spanier" during two press conferences that violated a non-disparagement clause in Spanier's termination contract, the lawsuit alleges.
The Freeh Report's damning portrait of Spanier led directly to criminal charges being filed against him by the Pennsylvania attorney general and have "caused him great economic harm," his lawsuit alleges. Two other former PSU leaders -- former athletic director Tim Curley and former university president Gary Schultz -- are also awaiting a criminal trial on charges of perjury and failure to properly report suspected child abuse.
In July 2013, Spanier filed notice that he intended to file a libel-type lawsuit against Freeh, but his complaint was not filed until Wednesday afternoon at the Centre County courthouse in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Spanier's defense of the criminal charges and his fight to rehabilitate his reputation will now travel on parallel tracks -- one in the Dauphin County criminal courthouse and the other in the Centre County civil courthouse.
In his 267-page report, Freeh alleged that Spanier, football coach Joe Paterno, Curley and Schultz "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the university's board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large."
But Spanier's lawsuit denies his role: "Despite his tenure as President of Penn State, Dr. Spanier never received any information that Sandusky had abused a child. Dr. Spanier was never provided information that would lead him to conclude that Sandusky had ever committed a criminal act directed at a child until after[/I] Sandusky's criminal indictment."
"Louis Freeh concluded that Dr. Spanier was aware of Jerry Sandusky's reprehensible behavior, and that he actively covered it up," Locke said. "That is false. "
In the complaint, Spanier's lawyers say Freeh and his law firm were hired by the Penn State Board of Trustees, at a total cost of $8.3 million, to deliver a "preconceived outcome" that justified the board's decisions to fire Paterno and terminate Spanier's employment contract at the height of the country's outrage over the Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Spanier sat for an interview with Freeh and two his investigators on July 6, 2012, six days before the Freeh Report's release, and for a question-and-answer session that lasted four and a half hours, the complaint says. By then, the complaint alleges, Freeh's "preconceived outcome for the report" had already been written.
The suit also alleges that Freeh "intentionally interfered" with Spanier's prospective employment opportunities after leaving Penn State. In April 2012, Freeh heard from trustees that Spanier had been hired by the federal government to work on national security matters after he was cleared during a background check in a Federal Investigative Service report, the complaint says. But Freeh later told the trustees that he and his colleagues had "done [their] job" and contacted federal officials, the complaint alleges.
"Soon thereafter," the lawsuit says, "Dr. Spanier's assignments were terminated." "As Dr. Spanier's defamation complaint lays out, Freeh recklessly and maliciously disregarded evidence demonstrating Dr. Spanier's innocence, including a Federal Investigative Service report vindicating Dr. Spanier," said Locke, one of Spanier's attorneys.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Freeh discovered exculpatory testimony and facts that refuted the accusations against Spanier, and "purposefully avoiding interviewing the most critical individuals with most relevant knowledge." Freeh and his investigators did not question Paterno, though the coach offered to be interviewed prior to his death of complications from lung cancer in January 2012. Freeh also did not interview Curley and Schultz, who were both charged in November 2011.
The complaint also attacks Freeh's "lucrative business model" as a former federal judge and former FBI chief hired by institutions to conduct "so-called 'independent investigations' and producing 'investigative reports' custom tailored with preconceived storylines to meet his clients' objectives."
According to the complaint's timeline, it's clear Spanier's lawyers intend to rely upon a cache of documents produced during discovery of a recently settled lawsuit filed by two Pennsylvania state officials against the NCAA, including emails, memos and meetings between Freeh's investigators and NCAA lawyers and enforcement officials in the weeks after Freeh was hired by the Penn State Board of Trustees on Nov. 21, 2011.
Spanier is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Freeh; his law firm, which is now part of Pepper Hamilton; his consulting firm, Freeh Group International Solutions; and Penn State.
 
For one - Spanier makes this claim of tortious interference against Freeh and FGIS:




14. Dr. Spanier also brings tortious interference claims against Freeh and FGIS for their knowing and intentional interference with Dr. Spanier's contractual and prospective business relations following his separation as president of Penn State. Freeh and FGIS intentionally interfered with Dr. Spanier's post-Presidency work for the federal government on national security issues, a field in which Dr. Spanier is a recognized expert. During his engagement with Penn State, Freeh intentionally interfered with Dr. Spanier's existing and prospective employment, and caused Dr. Spanier to lose these employment opportunities.


15. Specifically, in April 2012 Freeh learned from conversations with
certain Trustees that Dr. Spanier had been hired to work on national security issues for the federal government . Freeh told these Trustees
that he and FGIS had "done [their] job" and contacted federal officials. Soon thereafter, Dr. Spanier's assignments were terminated.





This post was edited on 3/18 3:29 PM by mn78psu83
 
Re: Louie's a spiteful little shiat. *

They all are. The 2012 trustees, Big Ten, FSS, NCAA, Pennsylvania OAG... You name it, it smells like shit. Top to bottom.
 
Para highlighted by PS4RS...

CAZzFRvUMAEjhnh.jpg


CAZ1pzHUIAAPtwO.jpg

This post was edited on 3/18 3:40 PM by vader_psu
 
Re: Louie's a spiteful little shiat who, along with his

buddies, better have "60 million dollars" insurance to pay Spanier when this is all over. I made up the 60 million. Oh, maybe that's what PSU will owe him.

I hope Dr. Spanier gets paid and this proves that everything we have said about the BOT is true. Oh, we know that.
 
the first one is self explanatory...

what it means is that Freeh fingered Spanier for the 1998 incident ("allowing him to retire") when law enforcement fully vetted the situation and found there was insufficient data to file charges, how is that somehow Spanier's fault?
 
No PSU trustee has ever come clean about what s/he knew and when she knew

it. As I have railed and bitched about that over the past 3 years or so, CR-66 has several times reminded me of the Lanny Davis-arranged NYT interview in which several trustees spoke about various issues. Starting at paragraph #401, Spanky places this interview right in the crosshairs. We are going to see a LOT more about that little favorite CR episode in the months and years to come. I sure hope he does not forget how to get over here and take his beatdown on these various issues.

On another point, it is a 430-paragraph complaint that is 140+ pages long. Holy overstatement, Batman! Some kind of a record.
 
Well, you certainly ain't going to hear from CR66 on this lawsuit

... because [something] [something] is named in this lawsuit.

Oh. the. joy.
 
Re: No PSU trustee has ever come clean about what s/he knew and when she knew


They probably won't, but they are getting a bit of comeuppance in the complaint. For example, Spuds is pointedly referred to.


392.
A copy of the Separation Agreement is attached to this Complaint as
Exhibit D.
393.
The Separation Agreement prohibits Penn State from making any
negative comments about Dr. Spanier to the media, to his professional colleagues, or to any other members of the public.
394.
The Separation Agreement requires Penn State to use reasonable
efforts to cause the members of the Board of Trustees not to make any negative comments about Dr. Spanier to the media, to his professional colleagues, or to any other members of the public.
395.
Penn State has materially breached the Separation Agreement.
396.
Penn State breached the Separation Agreement by
failing to use reasonable efforts to cause Trustees Keith Masser not to make negative comments about Dr. Spanier to the media.
397.
Trustee Masser stated in a June 2012 interview with the Associated
Press that Dr. Spanier was "involved in a cover-up" of Sandusky's criminal activities. A copy of this interview is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F.
398.
Penn State undertook no efforts to cause Trustee Masser not to make
this negative comment about Dr. Spanier to the media, despite the Separation Agreement's prohibition on making such statements.

131
399.
Dr. Spanier has performed all of his obligations under the Separation
Agreement.
400.
Dr. Spanier has been damaged by Penn State’s contractual breach by, among other things, having his reputation tarnished, by having
Trustee Masser’s statement widely published and disseminated in the media, by loss of employment opportunities, by having to hire a professional media relations firm to attempt to repair the damage to his reputation, and by having to incur the substantial burden and expense of bringing and pursuing this action in order to enforce his rights under the Separation Agreement.




This post was edited on 3/18 4:32 PM by mn78psu83

This post was edited on 3/18 4:47 PM by mn78psu83
 
I didn't realize Spanier had a non disparagement agreement with PSU.

With that in mind, it was quite bold of Peetz/Frazier to hold their press conference affirming freeh's conclusions thus breaching this agreement. They also never were never authorized by the full PSU BOT to make those statements.....

Pretty clear that Peetz/Frazier felt they could do/say anything they wanted with ZERO consequences...I guess when this is all over we shall see if they were right
 
Hmmm... so we wear tin hats? Really?


The complaint also attacks Freeh's "lucrative business model" as a former federal judge and former FBI chief hired by institutions to conduct "so-called 'independent investigations' and producing 'investigative reports' custom tailored with preconceived storylines to meet his clients' objectives."

Seems like Spanier does too, right?

Maybe not. This board could smell the BOT and Freeh from day one. It was so f'in obvious that we spent about five minutes figuring out Freeh was a gun for hire.

WHERE IS THE F'IN PATRIOT NEWS and the others in the PA media on Freeh? GET WITH IT.
 
Also explains why "officially" they never admit to "accepting" the report, although most see this as in all practicality, a lie. The other thing either didn't know, or forgot about was that PSU is footing the bill for ALL his legal expenses, to include his defense against any criminal charges arising from the Sandusky matter so I assume the same is true for Schultz and Curley. Is PSU paying to have Spanier sue them as well? Wouldn't surprise me.
 
This is, to me, the Alpha and the Omega of the situation

deftly crafter by Spanier:

CAaCH0vUYAAN2ug.png
 
Its called Mercking. That's how its done. You can pay for any truth


according to Kenny.
 
Likely he has professional liability coverage

Someone in that business would be covered by their business insurance. He may also have some protection from the corporate structure. My guess is that both sides will just pile up legal costs for a while until after the criminal case is resolved, and then settle out of court, perhaps with a confidentiality provision.
 
It's hilarious that Spanier has a website debunking Freeh's report.

I don't mean that negatively; I believe it's a great ballsy move to go on the offensive. It adds to the several websites that are comprehensive in showing the inaccuracies of the accusations against the football program and certain Penn State administrators. The compilation of all this information has to be beneficial to defense lawyers. It also hands over droves of information on a silver platter to any investigative journalist who wants to blow the lid off the Freeh/BOT/NCAA fallacy, but where are these guys?
 
There's going to be quite a few uncomfortable depositions

coming up for the esteemed members of the bot.
 
I think I recall that the defamation suit legal stuff is not covered by PSU, but that Al Lord might be helping Spanier with that. Does anyone else remember this?
 
Yeah, it seems pretty open/shut to me...

The seperation agreement likely was a non-disclosure on both parties and Masser ran his mouth.
 
Freeh is indemnified by Penn State for suits related to his report.

In the unlikely event that Spanier should be successful, Penn State would also be on the hook for an judgment.

This post was edited on 3/18 7:24 PM by CDW3333
 
So, I have to ask this basic question...


Did they (Freeh, BoT, etc) all think they were somehow going to get away with all of this without SOMEONE filing legal action?

Could they have been that dumb or just that arrogant?
 
Unlike other lawsuits that targeted Freeh, this one also looks

to expose the inner workings of the bot and those who made decisions. No other lawsuit targets the bot members and their fiduciary duties quite like this one.
 
Re: Freeh is indemnified by Penn State for suits related to his report.

It's just unreal that Penn St did that. Cover Freeh from all lawsuits. Then again, you get him to be very willing to give you the reslts you want when if he has to stretch the truth or ignore exculpatory evidence- he's good with that since PSU covers any resulting lawsuits. He gets $8 million and walks away.
 
Why is it unlikely that Spanier will be successful in this suit? *

nfm
 
Re: Freeh is indemnified by Penn State for suits related to his report.

Originally posted by CDW3333:
In the unliukely event that Spanier should be successful, Penn State would also be on the hook for an judgment.


Pennsylvania law prohibits indemnity against one's own intentional torts. I'm not entirely sure how this plays into the malice-based libel/slander charges against Freeh, but he could have a problem. His malpractice insurance might not even apply.

Those D-Bags on the BOT might end up in trouble, too.
 
Spanier's defamation filing talks about the 2001 incident (Dranov's testimony shows that MM was upset by the incident but DID NOT witness anything sexual) :

CAaUEExWMAAn6f8.jpg



This explains the following dialog from the 12/16/11
Prelim
(the state wanted nothing to do with allowing MM to recap what he told Dr. D that night in 2001):

Pg. 68: Roberto asks MM what he told Dr. D, the
state objects due to irrelevence and it's of course sustained. These are
perjury charges we're talking about!!



Pg. 69: Roberto states she wants to hear what MM
told Dr. D. to see if it corroborates what MM told TC, there has to be a 2nd
witness to corroborate MM's statements. Again, the Judge doesn't agree and the
objection is sustained.



Roberto then goes on the record at the bottom of
page 69 and says "For
the record note my objection, and for the record, I mean, I think the
Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead
me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's
testimony."



 
Likewise. That, and the Freeh inscription on the home page are priceless

Great jabs at Freeh and his nonsense of a report.
 
Re: Freeh is indemnified by Penn State for suits related to his report.

Even more mind-blowing is that they supposedly allowed Freeh to release the report to the public before reviewing it. Yes, I realize that's probably not 100% true, but that's what has been claimed as true. So if we accept that, they allowed Freeh to release a report to the public, with no review or revision, for which PSU is financially responsible for any subsequent lawsuits? Why in the world would you agree to cover legal actions without even knowing the content of what you are legally supporting? Crazy town.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT